Does "selling mining leases" = "selling advertising" in scammer talk??..

I'm noticing a number of new scams which are selling "mining machines"...
Is this the new bs way that admins think will make them compliant in the USA and hide the fact they are running a ponzi??..

A reply from a scammer pitching a scam to me...

Quote:

---

what makes it legal to be paid on referals in the USA is you are paid on a commission for a lease on a tangible digital mining (DEVICE )

---

Can someone please explain in simple terms why this argument is flawed...

Check out this video in the VISTA NETWORK thread
for a full explanation of both the so called "mining machines" and the current trend of frauds hiding behind "product"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okosh

I'm noticing a number of new scams which are selling "mining machines"...
Is this the new bs way that admins think will make them compliant in the USA and hide the fact they are running a ponzi??..

A reply from a scammer pitching a scam to me...



Can someone please explain in simple terms why this argument is flawed...

---

there are no 'mining machines'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okosh

Can someone please explain in simple terms why this argument is flawed...

---

Checking back over the past few years, you'll find most, if not all of the "next-big-thing" schemes prosecuted claimed to have had a "product"

With My Advertising Pays, AdSurf Daily and Traffic Monsoon is was "advertising" or "adpacks" or "penny auction bids"

Herbalife it was what the h*** ever Herbalife claims to sell

Vemma it was "nutritional products"

WCM 777 it was "cloud based services"

TelexFree it was VOIP services

When it comes to pyramid / endless chain recruitment schemes, the question is not whether there is a "product"

What determines whether or not a scheme is classified as a pyramid scheme is how participants "earn" their income.

One of the easiest ways to understand the concept, is to take things to a ridiculous extreme.

For example, I set up a MLM company. I find a product, say cans of soda which you can buy anywhere for say $1.00.

I relabel it as "miracle soda" and offer it for sale at $10.00 WITH the ability to also recruit others to earn commission

Very few, if any, people will pay the $10.00 but a large number of people will recruit and earn the bulk of any income they make from recruiting.

A real life example is the "mini mining" machine being flogged by Vista Network.

They have taken a Raspberry Pi computer, which retails for $49.95, relabeled it, hyped up its' capabilities (i.e. lied about what it can do) and are selling it for $2995 or thereabouts.

Two things happen:

* If anyone DOES purchase a machine, Vista makes a HUGE profit.

* Vista members then concentrate on recruiting to make their profit.

If members earn more than 50% of any income from recruitment, and not from RETAIL sales, you have an illegal pyramid scheme

Which is problematic from two angles:

1) Pyramid / endless chain recruitment schemes are illegal

2) IM(very)HO the most important point from a potential members' point of view

PYRAMID / ENDLESS CHAIN RECRUITMENT SCHEMES, by their very nature are guaranteed to collapse once recruitment slows.

And that's before we even get to the ponzi aspect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okosh

I'm noticing a number of new scams which are selling "mining machines"...
Is this the new bs way that admins think will make them compliant in the USA and hide the fact they are running a ponzi??..

---

A better term would be running a "Fraud combining elements of both ponzi and pyramid / endless chain recruiting"

https://vimeo.com/251838777

Thanks...I just didn't know how to explain it properly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solar Calculator Scammer

what makes it legal to be paid on referals in the USA is you are paid on a commission for a lease on a tangible digital mining (DEVICE )

---

Even if these people weren't selling a bunch of hokum I'm not certain this arrangement would be legal unless registered by the SEC and sold via licensed brokers. Presumably the lease is for mining equipment that returns greater than the rental expense. The leasee further is probably doing nothing more than providing the lease payment.

Swap citrus groves with digital mining and it fits perfectly.


Background of the Howey Test

In 1946, the Supreme Court heard a case (SEC v. Howey) that concerned whether a leaseback agreement was legally an investment contract (one of the types of investments that is listed as a "security" under the Acts). In Howey, two Florida-based corporate defendants offered real estate contracts for tracts of land with citrus groves. The defendants offered buyers the option of leasing any purchased land back to the defendants, who would then tend to the land, and harvest, pool, and market the citrus. As most of the buyers were not farmers and did not have agricultural expertise, they were happy to lease the land back to the defendants.

What Is the Howey Test? - FindLaw